Iman Tahamtan

The normative theory of citing considers citations as rewarding tools to acknowledge the influence of scientific works, while the social constructivist theory of citing considers citations, for example, as persuasion tools used by authors to support their claims, and convince the scientific community that those claims are valid. Other citation theories and models have been proposed in recent years to overcome the limitations of the normative and social constructivist theories. Nevertheless, they have not been able to fully explain all citation motives of scientists (but have a certain focus). This study proposes a new theory (which we call “social systems citation theory”, SSCT) that integrates previous theories and models on publications and their citation links and is mainly based on Niklas Luhmann’s “social systems theory”. Luhmann’s social systems theory focuses on “communications” as the basic constituting elements of a social science system and not on humans and their motives. Humans are not part of social systems but are connected with them and irritate them. Thus, the social systems theory does not have the problem of integrating various and different motives of humans to cite in the science system. In the SSCT, authors’ motives to cite belong to psychic systems while publications and their citation links belong to the social science system. The systems operate autonomously but interact with each other: the social system operates recursively with publications and citation links. Although psychic systems stimulate or irritate the science system, they do not determine communications in the science system. In this study, we explain the SSCT and demonstrate how the theory can be used to underlie empirical bibliometric studies.

Background: Little is known about the role of the World Health Organization (WHO) in communicating with the public on social media during a global health emergency. More specifically, there is no study about the relationship between the agendas of the WHO and Twitter users during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: This study utilizes the network agenda-setting model to investigate the mutual relationship between the agenda of the WHO’s official Twitter account and the agenda of 7.5 million of its Twitter followers regarding COVID-19. Methods: Content analysis was applied to 7090 tweets posted by the WHO on Twitter from January 1, 2020, to July 31, 2020, to identify the topics of tweets. The quadratic assignment procedure (QAP) was used to investigate the relationship between the WHO agenda network and the agenda network of the 6 Twitter user categories, including “health care professionals,” “academics,” “politicians,” “print and electronic media,” “legal professionals,” and the “private sector.” Additionally, 98 Granger causality statistical tests were performed to determine which topic in the WHO agenda had an effect on the corresponding topic in each Twitter user category and vice versa. Results: Content analysis revealed 7 topics that reflect the WHO agenda related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including “prevention,” “solidarity,” “charity,” “teamwork,” “ill-effect,” “surveillance,” and “credibility.” Results of the QAP showed significant and strong correlations between the WHO agenda network and the agenda network of each Twitter user category. These results provide evidence that WHO had an overall effect on different types of Twitter users on the identified topics. For instance, the Granger causality tests indicated that the WHO tweets influenced politicians and print and electronic media about “surveillance.” The WHO tweets also influenced academics and the private sector about “credibility” and print and electronic media about “ill-effect.” Additionally, Twitter users affected some topics in the WHO. For instance, WHO followers affected “charity” and “prevention” in the WHO. Conclusions: This paper extends theorizing on agenda setting by providing empirical evidence that agenda-setting effects vary by topic and types of Twitter users. Although prior studies showed that network agenda setting is a “one-way” model, the novel findings of this research confirm a “2-way” or “multiway” effect of agenda setting on social media due to the interactions between the content creators and audiences. The WHO can determine which topics should be promoted on social media during different phases of a pandemic and collaborate with other public health gatekeepers to collectively make them salient in the public.

Background: The word “infodemic” refers to the deluge of false information about an event, and it is a global challenge for today’s society. The sheer volume of misinformation circulating during the COVID-19 pandemic has been harmful to people around the world. Therefore, it is important to study different aspects of misinformation related to the pandemic. Objective: This paper aimed to identify the main subthemes related to COVID-19 misinformation on various platforms, from traditional outlets to social media. This paper aimed to place these subthemes into categories, track the changes, and explore patterns in prevalence, over time, across different platforms and contexts. Methods: From a theoretical perspective, this research was rooted in framing theory; it also employed thematic analysis to identify the main themes and subthemes related to COVID-19 misinformation. The data were collected from 8 fact-checking websites that formed a sample of 127 pieces of false COVID-19 news published from January 1, 2020 to March 30, 2020. Results: The findings revealed 4 main themes (attribution, impact, protection and solutions, and politics) and 19 unique subthemes within those themes related to COVID-19 misinformation. Governmental and political organizations (institutional level) and administrators and politicians (individual level) were the 2 most frequent subthemes, followed by origination and source, home remedies, fake statistics, treatments, drugs, and pseudoscience, among others. Results indicate that the prevalence of misinformation subthemes had altered over time between January 2020 and March 2020. For instance, false stories about the origin and source of the virus were frequent initially (January). Misinformation regarding home remedies became a prominent subtheme in the middle (February), while false information related to government organizations and politicians became popular later (March). Although conspiracy theory web pages and social media outlets were the primary sources of misinformation, surprisingly, results revealed trusted platforms such as official government outlets and news organizations were also avenues for creating COVID-19 misinformation. Conclusions: The identified themes in this study reflect some of the information attitudes and behaviors, such as denial, uncertainty, consequences, and solution-seeking, that provided rich information grounds to create different types of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some themes also indicate that the application of effective communication strategies and the creation of timely content were used to persuade human minds with false stories in different phases of the crisis. The findings of this study can be beneficial for communication officers, information professionals, and policy makers to combat misinformation in future global health crises or related events.

While previous research has mostly focused on the “number of mentions” of scientific research on social media, the current study applies “topic networks” to measure public attention to scientific research on Twitter. Topic networks are the networks of co-occurring author keywords in scholarly publications and networks of co-occurring hashtags in the tweets mentioning those publications. We investigate which topics in opioid scholarly publications have received public attention on Twitter. Additionally, we investigate whether the topic networks generated from the publications tweeted by all accounts (bot and nonbot accounts) differ from those generated by nonbot accounts. Our analysis is based on a set of opioid publications from 2011 to 2019 and the tweets associated with them. Results indicated that Twitter users have mostly used generic terms to discuss opioid publications, such as “Pain,” “Addiction,” “Analgesics,” “Abuse,” “Overdose,” and “Disorders.” A considerable amount of tweets is produced by accounts that were identified as automated social media accounts, known as bots. There was a substantial overlap between the topic networks based on the tweets by all accounts (bot and nonbot accounts). This result indicates that it might not be necessary to exclude bot accounts for generating topic networks as they have a negligible impact on the results. This study provided some preliminary evidence that scholarly publications have a network agenda-setting effect on Twitter.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). Background: Little is known about the role of the World Health Organization (WHO) in communicating with the public on social media during a global health emergency. More specifically, there is no study about the relationship between the agendas of the WHO and Twitter users during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: This study utilizes the network agenda-setting model to investigate the mutual relationship between the agenda of the WHO’s official Twitter account and the agenda of 7.5 million of its Twitter followers regarding COVID-19. Methods: Content analysis was applied to 7090 tweets posted by the WHO on Twitter from January 1, 2020, to July 31, 2020, to identify the topics of tweets. The quadratic assignment procedure (QAP) was used to investigate the relationship between the WHO agenda network and the agenda network of the 6 Twitter user categories, including “health care professionals,” “academics,” “politicians,” “print and electronic media,” “legal professionals,” and the “private sector.” Additionally, 98 Granger causality statistical tests were performed to determine which topic in the WHO agenda had an effect on the corresponding topic in each Twitter user category and vice versa. Results: Content analysis revealed 7 topics that reflect the WHO agenda related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including “prevention,” “solidarity,” “charity,” “teamwork,” “ill-effect,” “surveillance,” and “credibility.” Results of the QAP showed significant and strong correlations between the WHO agenda network and the agenda network of each Twitter user category. These results provide evidence that WHO had an overall effect on different types of Twitter users on the identified topics. For instance, the Granger causality tests indicated that the WHO tweets influenced politicians and print and electronic media about “surveillance.” The WHO tweets also influenced academics and the private sector about “credibility” and print and electronic media about “ill-effect.” Additionally, Twitter users affected some topics in the WHO. For instance, WHO followers affected “charity” and “prevention” in the WHO. Conclusions: This paper extends theorizing on agenda setting by providing empirical evidence that agenda-setting effects vary by topic and types of Twitter users. Although prior studies showed that network agenda setting is a “one-way” model, the novel findings of this research confirm a “2-way” or “multiway” effect of agenda setting on social media due to the interactions between the content creators and audiences. The WHO can determine which topics should be promoted on social media during different phases of a pandemic and collaborate with other public health gatekeepers to collectively make them salient in the public.

BACKGROUND The word “infodemic” refers to the deluge of false information about an event, and it is a global challenge for today’s society. The sheer volume of misinformation circulating during the COVID-19 pandemic has been harmful to people around the world. Therefore, it is important to study different aspects of misinformation related to the pandemic. OBJECTIVE This paper aimed to identify the main subthemes related to COVID-19 misinformation on various platforms, from traditional outlets to social media. This paper aimed to place these subthemes into categories, track the changes, and explore patterns in prevalence, over time, across different platforms and contexts. METHODS From a theoretical perspective, this research was rooted in framing theory; it also employed thematic analysis to identify the main themes and subthemes related to COVID-19 misinformation. The data were collected from 8 fact-checking websites that formed a sample of 127 pieces of false COVID-19 news published from January 1, 2020 to March 30, 2020. RESULTS The findings revealed 4 main themes (attribution, impact, protection and solutions, and politics) and 19 unique subthemes within those themes related to COVID-19 misinformation. Governmental and political organizations (institutional level) and administrators and politicians (individual level) were the 2 most frequent subthemes, followed by origination and source, home remedies, fake statistics, treatments, drugs, and pseudoscience, among others. Results indicate that the prevalence of misinformation subthemes had altered over time between January 2020 and March 2020. For instance, false stories about the origin and source of the virus were frequent initially (January). Misinformation regarding home remedies became a prominent subtheme in the middle (February), while false information related to government organizations and politicians became popular later (March). Although conspiracy theory web pages and social media outlets were the primary sources of misinformation, surprisingly, results revealed trusted platforms such as official government outlets and news organizations were also avenues for creating COVID-19 misinformation. CONCLUSIONS The identified themes in this study reflect some of the information attitudes and behaviors, such as denial, uncertainty, consequences, and solution-seeking, that provided rich information grounds to create different types of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some themes also indicate that the application of effective communication strategies and the creation of timely content were used to persuade human minds with false stories in different phases of the crisis. The findings of this study can be beneficial for communication officers, information professionals, and policy makers to combat misinformation in future global health crises or related events.

Background: Although past research has focused on COVID-19–related frames in the news media, such research may not accurately capture and represent the perspectives of people from diverse backgrounds. Additionally, research on the public attention to COVID-19 as reflected through frames on social media is scarce. Objective: This study identified the frames about the COVID-19 pandemic in the public discourse on Twitter, which voices diverse opinions. This study also investigated the amount of public attention to those frames on Twitter. Methods: We collected 22 trending hashtags related to COVID-19 in the United States and 694,582 tweets written in English containing these hashtags in March 2020 and analyzed them via thematic analysis. Public attention to these frames was measured by evaluating the amount of public engagement with frames and public adoption of those frames. Results: We identified 9 frames including “public health guidelines,” “quarantine life,” “solidarity,” “evidence and facts,” “call for action,” “politics,” “post-pandemic life,” “shortage panic,” and “conflict.” Results showed that some frames such as “call for action” are more appealing than others during a global pandemic, receiving greater public adoption and engagement. The “call for action” frame had the highest engagement score, followed by “conflict” and “evidence and facts.” Additionally, “post-pandemic life” had the highest adoption score, followed by “call for action” and “shortage panic.” The findings indicated that the frequency of a frame on social media does not necessarily mean greater public adoption of or engagement with the frame. Conclusions: This study contributes to framing theory and research by demonstrating how trending hashtags can be used as new user-generated data to identify frames on social media. This study concludes that the identified frames such as “quarantine life” and “conflict” and themes such as “isolation” and “toilet paper panic” represent the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. The consequences could be (1) exclusively related to COVID-19, such as hand hygiene or isolation; (2) related to any health crisis such as social support of vulnerable groups; and (3) generic that are irrespective of COVID-19, such as homeschooling or remote working.

BACKGROUND Although past research has focused on COVID-19–related frames in the news media, such research may not accurately capture and represent the perspectives of people from diverse backgrounds. Additionally, research on the public attention to COVID-19 as reflected through frames on social media is scarce. OBJECTIVE This study identified the frames about the COVID-19 pandemic in the public discourse on Twitter, which voices diverse opinions. This study also investigated the amount of public attention to those frames on Twitter. METHODS We collected 22 trending hashtags related to COVID-19 in the United States and 694,582 tweets written in English containing these hashtags in March 2020 and analyzed them via thematic analysis. Public attention to these frames was measured by evaluating the amount of public engagement with frames and public adoption of those frames. RESULTS We identified 9 frames including “public health guidelines,” “quarantine life,” “solidarity,” “evidence and facts,” “call for action,” “politics,” “post-pandemic life,” “shortage panic,” and “conflict.” Results showed that some frames such as “call for action” are more appealing than others during a global pandemic, receiving greater public adoption and engagement. The “call for action” frame had the highest engagement score, followed by “conflict” and “evidence and facts.” Additionally, “post-pandemic life” had the highest adoption score, followed by “call for action” and “shortage panic.” The findings indicated that the frequency of a frame on social media does not necessarily mean greater public adoption of or engagement with the frame. CONCLUSIONS This study contributes to framing theory and research by demonstrating how trending hashtags can be used as new user-generated data to identify frames on social media. This study concludes that the identified frames such as “quarantine life” and “conflict” and themes such as “isolation” and “toilet paper panic” represent the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. The consequences could be (1) exclusively related to COVID-19, such as hand hygiene or isolation; (2) related to any health crisis such as social support of vulnerable groups; and (3) generic that are irrespective of COVID-19, such as homeschooling or remote working.

Since the inception of gatekeeping research in the 1940s, most studies on gatekeeping have been human‐centric, treating and studying individuals as gatekeepers, who perform their gatekeeping role using a combination of the following mechanisms: forming communities, and/or broadcasting, discovering‐searching, collecting, organizing, or protecting information. However, the nature of communication channels and how information is produced by and shared with users has fundamentally changed in the last 80 years. One significant change is the growing use of technology‐enabled metadata like hashtags when sharing information on social media. Rarely any study investigates whether hashtags can perform gatekeeping of information and what it means for information gatekeeping. This paper fills in the gap by conducting a content analysis of 77 interdisciplinary studies on hashtags and gatekeeping to confirm how they can implement six gatekeeping mechanisms. This study shows that hashtags expand our understanding of the role of technology solutions in gatekeeping and advance research on hierarchical gatekeeping. The benefits of hashtags for gatekeeping suggest that they act as “information anchors” for online communities, thereby highlighting the utility of information gatekeepers for society.

Aim: This systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluates the attitudes of Iranian nurses towards clinical information systems in nursing practice.Background: Nurses are essential in the successful adoption and implementation of clinical information systems.Methods: A systematic search was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science and Farsi databases, to retrieve relevant studies. The methodological quality of the studies is assessed via the Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal checklist for analytical cross‐sectional studies. The random effect model was utilized to analyse the data due to the high heterogeneity in the included studies (n = 17).Results: Results indicate that clinical information systems impact on at least seven aspects of nursing practice, including documentation, patient safety, quality of treatment, communication, treatment management, nursing tasks and hospital resource management. Results also indicated that one aspect of using clinical information systems in nursing practice is satisfaction with the ‘quality and design of clinical information systems’, such as ease of use and learning, flexibility and software speed.Conclusion: Clinical information systems can contribute to different aspects of nursing practice. However, their design should improve significantly in order to help nurses perform their professional activities in an efficient and satisfactory manner.Implications for Nursing Policy: Before the full deployment of clinical information systems, their usability should be tested. In pilot testing, nurses should provide necessary feedback about how well the systems work and improvements needed to meet their professional goals.